Medical Bail and Interim Relief: Legal Insights on the Grounds for Granting Bail in Criminal Cases

This case concerns the writ petition filed by Chander Prakash Wadhwa, who is currently in custody following his arrest in two cases. The first case was lodged by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, and the second by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner had previously been granted interim bail due to his medical condition but was subsequently arrested in the second case while on bail. The central issue in this case revolves around whether the petitioner’s medical condition justifies granting him bail and whether he should be allowed to challenge the trial court’s denial of bail on the grounds of his health.

Background:
The petitioner was arrested in two different cases, both related to offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In the first case, the petitioner was granted interim bail for medical reasons due to his heart condition and trigeminal neuralgia. However, while on interim bail, the petitioner was arrested in the second case by the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the medical condition was deteriorating, and they sought bail on medical grounds, referring to the ongoing treatment and medical reports that indicated a need for specialized medical care.

Initially, the Supreme Court had reviewed the petitioner’s health condition and found that his medical condition was stable as per the medical report from King George’s Medical University, Lucknow. Despite this, the petitioner’s counsel presented updated medical certificates showing the worsening of his condition, which included a 80-90% blockage in coronary arteries and trigeminal neuralgia, a condition causing severe facial pain. Based on these updated reports, the petitioner’s counsel sought interim relief and requested a review of the earlier order denying bail.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/legal-precedents-in-pocso-act-supreme-courts-review-of-anticipatory-bail-in-sexual-assault-case/

Appellant’s Arguments:
The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that his medical condition had worsened, requiring urgent medical intervention. The petitioner’s counsel referred to recent medical reports indicating significant health concerns, including severe arterial blockages and persistent neurological pain. The medical reports from both King George’s Medical University and Ganga Ram Hospital were submitted, detailing the necessity for angiography and additional treatment for trigeminal neuralgia, which caused debilitating pain and required immediate medical attention. The counsel further emphasized that the petitioner had not received adequate treatment during his time in custody and that his condition posed a grave risk to his health.

The petitioner’s counsel also referred to the previous order by the Supreme Court, which had allowed interim bail on the grounds of medical reasons, and argued that given the worsening condition, the petitioner should be granted bail once again. The counsel requested that a medical board of specialists be constituted to assess the petitioner’s current health and determine whether his condition warranted his release on medical grounds.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondent, represented by counsel, opposed the granting of bail on medical grounds, arguing that the medical reports provided did not demonstrate an urgent or life-threatening condition that would warrant granting bail. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner had already been assessed by medical professionals, including a Medical Board, and had been denied interim bail based on the assessment that his medical condition was stable. The respondent further argued that the petitioner had not presented new medical evidence that warranted a change in the previous order and that granting bail on medical grounds would set a dangerous precedent.

The respondent also highlighted that the petitioner’s bail had been granted earlier, and there was no reason to reconsider that decision given the absence of any significant new medical findings. The respondent emphasized the need for a thorough evaluation of the petitioner’s health, but argued that the proper process was to challenge the trial court’s decision in the lower courts rather than through a writ petition.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/legality-of-detention-orders-analysis-of-the-judgment-on-gali-janardhan-reddys-preventive-detention/

Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court carefully considered the appellant’s medical condition as presented in the updated reports. The Court noted that the petitioner had suffered from both heart disease, with significant arterial blockage, and trigeminal neuralgia, which caused intense facial pain. The Court also took note of the previous medical board’s report, which had concluded that the petitioner’s condition was stable at the time of the earlier decision. However, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had presented additional medical reports suggesting that his condition had worsened since the last evaluation.

The Court recognized the seriousness of the petitioner’s medical condition, particularly the need for immediate treatment for the heart condition and the neurological disorder. It also noted that the petitioner had already undergone basic medical treatment in custody but required specialized care, including angiography and further medical interventions. In light of the updated medical reports and the concerns raised by the petitioner’s counsel, the Court agreed that the petitioner’s health condition required careful consideration.

The Court also considered the possibility of having a medical board assess the petitioner’s health condition to provide an updated evaluation. It emphasized that the petitioner’s health must be the paramount concern, and any decision regarding bail must be made with consideration of his medical needs.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner the opportunity to challenge the trial court’s decision. The Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to either file a fresh application for bail before the trial court or raise the issue in an appeal against the trial court’s order. The Court directed that the trial court consider the petitioner’s medical condition, and if necessary, the court could have the petitioner examined by a medical board, consisting of four qualified medical professionals, to assess his current health status. The Court emphasized that the matter should be considered on its own merits, and the trial court should give due regard to the updated medical reports presented by the petitioner.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/menon-ekka-smt-menon-ujjana-ekka-v-union-of-india-analysis-on-bail-and-appeal-process/

The Court also noted that the petitioner had already been granted interim bail once on medical grounds, and the issue of whether to grant bail based on medical conditions should be carefully considered by the trial court, in accordance with established legal precedents and guidelines.

Conclusion:
This case underscores the importance of ensuring that the health of individuals in custody is properly assessed and that bail applications based on medical grounds are considered with due care. The decision highlights the need for a fair process in granting bail, particularly in cases where a petitioner’s health is at risk. The judgment also reinforces the role of medical professionals and the courts in ensuring that the petitioner receives appropriate treatment while maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. The case sets an important precedent for future bail applications based on medical grounds, ensuring that decisions are made with a balanced approach to both justice and the health of the individual involved.

Petitioner Name: Chander Prakash Wadhwa.
Respondent Name: State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 21-10-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: chander-prakash-wadh-vs-state-(nct-of-delhi)-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-21-10-2022.pdf